Bush, not lax officers, rules of engagement etc. to Blame for the 15

Short but sweet from the Corner at NRO comes this from Victor Davis Hanson

“This "incident" has proved a multilateral trifecta: a patrol sanctioned by the U.N. gets no support from the U.N., a member of the EU is left hanging in the interest of EU trade, a NATO member finds no NATO allies, other than the U.S., to offer support. So what is the purpose of these alphabetic organizations? Perhaps Ahmadinejad should start holding seminars, Henry Kissinger style, to instruct the Islamic world on how to deal with the West, given his instincts that Western rhetoric is in inverse proportion to Western willingness to stand up for a principle.”

THE REST HERE

Be sure to follow the link to The un-Independent to understand how it is the U.S.’ fault again.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

15 for 698,230,970 – Iran, the Middle East and the Rest of us

Lessons, lessons, lessons! I’m tired of the experts saying we should do this, that or the other thing to teach Iran a lesson. It’s quite possible that I have actually used this word as well (although obviously I am not an expert); but that said, I wouldn’t want to use it again because at this time I am tired of it.

Now obviously Iran has learned lessons so it is not inappropriate to use the term. Provoking with “peaceful nukes,” threatening the destruction of Israel and on and on; what’s the lesson learned? Obviously that they can tweak the West with impunity and we will back down, they will earn prestige points with radicals and they will just repeat the activities. I do not personally care if they learn a different type of lesson at all. Forget about lessons, do something for the sake of doing it because it is necessary for a change on the Wests point.

Iran now holds 15 British sailors and royal marines hostage. Analysts say:

“Iran's tough stance in the the standoff over 15 captured British sailors is a demonstration of the power of hardliners unafraid to confront the West.”

Further, Iran has brushed aside:

“diplomatic overtures from the SEARCH
European Union, Japan and Turkey in recent days. And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a higher-profile role, declaring in his most extensive comments on the crisis that Britain and its allies were "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing over what he called the Britons' incursion into Iranian waters.”

Britain and its allies are “arrogant and selfish” because they won’t apologize according to Momo Ahmadinejad. Momo and the Mullahs wouldn’t be considered arrogant and intransigent for taking 15 hostages and parading them on Iranian TV in a propaganda extravaganza intended to increase their prestige in the M.E. right?

Tehran is finding that the British are starting to come around or at least not speaking back to them militarily, which was likely expected or at least hoped for by the Republics leadership.

Responding in writing to Iran:

“in response to a note from Iranian officials, Britain agreed to consider discussions about how to avoid similar disputes in the future, said the British official. Britain's response — most of which has been kept secret — may have prompted the report Monday from Iran's state-run radio.”

Speaking tough, an anonymous spokesman in the know on government policy:

"The Iranians know our position; they know that stage-managed TV appearances are not going to affect our position. They know we have strong international support."

No, “stage-managed TV” will make no difference, nor will “strong international support.” Lessons that we should have learned is that “support” internationally is like a jock strap with no cup in place. International support is talk. Tehran is not concerned with talk as all the advantage and victory is theirs to manipulate.

Someone that could perhaps be considered a counter-part of mine and many others with my likeminded opinions might be Mahmoud Jafari, a 37 year-old Iranian teacher that said:

"For years, Britain has been doing whatever it could against Iran in various fields, such as the nuclear issue. They have to learn that it costs something."

Jafari is not a blogger, though if he were he certainly would not be one that would dare say anything anti-Iranian, because that would not be acceptable in that nation.

So here we are, roughly two weeks from the date that the 15 people were taken hostage by Iran. Britain does not want to escalate things beyond their control or ours; unfortunately, regardless of what is done is beyond everyone’s control, to think otherwise is naïve as far as I’m concerned.

I do not look upon the 15 people in captivity as being non-entities or of having no importance to themselves, family or anyone else that may be concerned. But Britain’s and the international community’s tepid response; other than playing into Tehran’s hands, is effectively placing the importance of 15 lives above and beyond that of, (to just quote a few numbers) from CIA.gov:

England – 60,609,153

France – 62,752,136

U.S. – 298,444,215

Italy – 58,133,509

Spain – 40,397,842

Germany – 82,422,299

Iran – 68,688,433

Iraq - 26,783,383

Numbers all estimates as of July 2006

There are those that will/would consider my points as the actions that would imperil us all; and rightly so, as there would be repercussions to my suggestions, just as there are and have been repercussions to doing nothing. The numbers I quote are in an effort to illustrate that not doing as I and others might suggest could have the exact same effect, only slower over time that would have quite the eventual up tick when we all decide to wake up and open our eyes.

A very interesting and thought provoking post from "Prose before Hos" with "Inside Iran: Picking through the complex US-Iranian Relations," which requires more time and patience but good brain food - good stuff

Previous posts regarding the hostages or recent developments, from this site:

“Iran – When Can We Talk?”

“The Iranian Gambit – Ours and Theirs”

“Escalation by Britain Raises the Stakes with Iran”

“A Civilian Chicken-Hawk Warmonger on Iraq, Iran, the U.S., Britain and 15 Hostages”

“In Defense of a Chicken-hawk and 15 Hostages”

“Iran, One More Step to be taken and “We Can Talk” – British Illegal Entry into Iranian Waters”

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Whose “Intelligence,” is more Intelligent? The MSM or Governments

I was alerted to the existence of this “piece” by an article written my James S. Robbins at National Review Online, entitled, “Al Qaeda is back?”

The Robbins article questions the nearly unanimous opinion as fact, that the U.S. is losing or fighting a losing battle against the almost omnipotent al Qaeda. The article here, may appear to some as a piece preaching to the choir, but isn’t to anyone that may be interested in weighing the possibilities/points themselves.

That said I’m off in a slightly different direction; that being questioning the “balance,” of the decision(s) made by the msm writers and editorialists as to which “facts” are the appropriate ones for a given article.

Last week I posted regarding an editorial or two, the writers of which appeared to use their own paper as the source for the “facts.” This I believe is part of the msms problem; that being the bubble they inhabit forces them to use their own material, which in turn strengthens the belief that they know these tidbits as fact because they read it in the paper.

On Valentines Day of all times, the NY Times railed on the Bush Administration regarding the tentative agreement with North Korea asking (italics mine):

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

I in turn asked:

"What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The day previous found the editorial board up in arms over the “nameless briefers,” involved in the “supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed.” Yet another instance of lessons not learned; “how little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

I wondered which scenario the paper felt would suffice in satisfying its unquenchable need for meat from either the left or right buttock of the president, since the editorial took both sides, which leaves nothing to counter with. Here, they expect conclusiveness:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

Yet, a little further down:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

Ultimately, I guess neither scenario will satisfy the paper.

The Washington Post had an article that does not allow for any possibility of anything, save for what it sees as obvious, which can be found in my post “The Demuring Pace on Iran and the Possibility Denying Media.” The Post also uses various language and “facts” to “color our news.”

Today, thanks to Mr. Robbins (I had no time for perusing today, except for Robbins and the article in question), I get to note the hypocritical “balance,” of the NY Times again, and only one paragraph is needed as example:

“The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.”

An awful wordy and redundant post on my part if only to illustrate the obvious (though not to them or are they just dishonest); the msm is not a font of balanced honesty or its most trusted source for information, facts and history is itself. Oh yeah, and the impression one gets that "anonymity" is only acceptable to the "trusted" elite media.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1628584583999462915

Bush Lied, Will Innocent Iranian Terrorists Die?

A recent move by the Bush administration authorizes and urges the use of lethal force against Iranian intelligence officers and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard within Iraq; as these groups have been working with Shiite militias there.

Washington Post:

“In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias.”

Before this however:

"For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time…..U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go."

Kicking it up a notch:

“The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

Here’s the “but wait…:”

At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

Appropriate actions, but the familiar refrain of calling the president a liar may pop up.

As with any plan of action or action, this new authority has it’s supporters and detractors:

“The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.”

Is this the same “intelligence community,” that just a few years ago was looked upon as wanting? Is this the same “intelligence community,” that after being chastised by representatives on both sides of the aisle became the “all knowing darlings” to those in opposition to the Iraq Theater of Operations whenever it disagreed with the administration?

I understand concerns; I also understand concerns have kept us from taking this fight to the enemy as is necessary to some semblance of victory.

“Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

Holding Iran accountable unfortunately does have its risks, one risk of course being escalation. I also don’t know whether the administration’s “theory” is accurate, I have my doubts; but only time will tell.

To fight a war of this nature, or of any nature for that matter one needs to recognize the enemy and those that would do the endeavor harm. It doesn’t lean toward victory if we choose to ignore various aspects of the field for fear of escalation.

We can back down and pull out of Iraq for fear of just such an escalation; but retreating would create an escalation as well, to the greater war.

Trackback to this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2334732133509386485